Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Brooklyn Conservative Party’s list of “elected officials and candidates” specifically excluded key “conservative Republicans” who were either elected with Brooklyn Conservative Party assistance or have the Conservative Party line for this year’s General Elections and put Democrats and other outsiders in their place

Jerry Kassar has a lot of nerve giving out an award with Jim Gay’s name attached to it at his party’s 50th Anniversary Reception, because the real name for this year’s event should be the “The Brooklyn Conservative Party’s First Openly Brokered and Bought Anniversary Reception.” And the reality of what that really means would have made the real Jim Gay sicker than anything he went through in the last year of his life. If Jim Gay were still with us, he would give Kassar an earful about what Kassar has made of the Brooklyn Conservative Party.

Jerry Kassar has become an open and notorious practitioner of his own kind of power ball lottery, playing the back-room game with certain Democrats and Dean Skelos, with the masked smile of a Guy Faux for the unsuspecting Republican-Candidates that might have been foolish enough to believe that Kassar had their back because they had his party’s endorsement.

Kassar’s list of featured attendees at his “... Anniversary Reception” says it all: “U.S. Senate Candidate Wendy Long will speak and elected officials and candidates such as Congressman Michael Grimm, Senator Marty Golden, Assemblywoman Malliotakis, Councilmembers Greenfield and Felder, as well as Assembly candidate Tom McCarthy and many others, will be on hand.”

Democrats Greenfield and Felder stick out like sore thumbs (btw, Felder is not a Member of the City Council) not only because they are Democrats, but because they are the principal beneficiaries of Kassar’s recent sellouts of the Conservative Party.

Here is a list of the Brooklyn Republican-Conservative office holders and/or Brooklyn Republican-Conservative candidates uninvited and/or omitted as featured guests who “will be on hand” in the announcement of the Brooklyn Conservative Party Anniversary Reception posted in its blog:

David Ignatius — Fox News has raised questions about the Benghazi attack that deserve clear answers from the Obama Administration.

One of the top foreign policy columnists in the main steam media, David Ignatius, is asking the right question and prompting the Obama Administration to make the right response, as follows: “So what did happen in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, when [Tyrone] Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two others Americans were killed? The best way to establish the facts would be a detailed, unclassified timeline of events; officials say they are preparing one, and that it may be released later this week. That’s a must, even in the volatile final week of the campaign.”

After laying out his own exposition of several key events in Benghazi on 9/11/12, Ignatius said, “The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions."

In what the Washington Post columnist called, " A final, obvious point...", David Ignatius concluded that, "The “fog of battle” that night [9/11/12] was dense not just in Benghazi but in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere. U.S. officials needed better intelligence. That’s the toughest problem to address, but the most important.”

Key figure in the Benghazi controversy General Carter Ham might be retiring soon after his being “rotated” from the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) --- before his mandatory retirement date

There is a report that a key figure in the Benghazi controversy, General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) will be leaving the Army soon after he is “rotated” out of his command. As questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events began to percolate almost two weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made the surprise announcement that General Ham soon would be succeeded at AFRICOM by General David Rodriguez.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta had announced on October 18th that General David Rodriguez would succeed Gen. Ham. On Monday Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey said, “The speculation that Gen. Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false.... General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.” However, in another unusual move, it now looks like General Ham might also be retiring before his mandatory retirement date ( See additional coverage on these matters in the Washington Times //.....washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/29/dempsey-hits-rumors-about-africom
-chiefs-departure/#ixzz2ArIkj7Kx //; //.... washington times.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/). There has been speculation that General Ham is prepared to make a personal statement about the events of 9/11/12 after he ceases active duty.

Last night on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News program On the Record, former Assistant Secretary of State Bing West repeated a charge against the top chain of command, with specificity and certainty, that it was virtually impossible for President Obama to have done what he has said that he did in response to the attack on the “consulate” in Benghazi, Libya. If President Obama said to Secretary Panetta and Chairman of Joint Chiefs Dempsey, “do whatever you need to in order to protect our people”, then “an execute order” would exist from President Obama to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey, and from Panetta and Dempsey to AFRICOM General Ham to take action.

According to Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, General Ham had told the congressman during a visit to Libya that the general had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. This is in stark contrast to the statement of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that General Ham, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. Senior Romney adviser, and possible future Secretary of State, John R. Bolton has said, “General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways ... Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh.”

Also it’s been reported in John Hudson’s 10/30/12 post on The Atlantic Wire, that “...a senior defense official says the Pentagon never rejected requests for military intervention in Benghazi. Not only that, the official said no such requests were ever made.... *** Now, with the addition of the Pentagon's denial to The Atlantic Wire, all three major players in the government's national security apparatus have weighed in [on a report by Fox News that military assistance was sought by CIA assets on the ground and denied by higher authority]. Each of them used slightly different language to describe their agency or department's role in the attack. But the CIA, Pentagon, and National Security Council each used guarded language to describe their involvement, and it can be difficult to divine what exactly they're saying.”

It’s tough to tell how that all fits in with the President’s statements about his early involvement on 9/11/12 to order that our personnel be protected. However, Obama, his National Security Team and all of the CIA and Pentagon officials involved in the Benghazi scandals are beginning to look like something out of “Alice in Wonderland” in all of it.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A NY Times article about the deteriorating security environment in and around Benghazi in the run-up to 9/11/12 finally sees the light of day along with the arrival of "Hurricane Sandy" in the Northeast

The mainstream print media is finally giving some column inches to the Benghazi mess for the Obama Administration and the Obama Campaign. According to the New York Times 10/29/12 article, "Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific" by MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning’.” Generally following a time-line type of analysis, the Times’ reporters note that, “In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.” However, the research and analysis by these Timesmen leads them to assert, “Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack’s aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.” What has been revealed by the New York Times in the middle of a hurricane was that a major question has arisen about the Obama Administration's inability to react to the months-long worsening environment on the ground in Benghazi prior to the 9/11 attack there by an Al Qaeda affiliate. Although the initially security set-up in Benghazi appeared to be adequate, after the initial security teams began rotating out of Libya months after the opening of the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, there was a complete and total absence of planning effecting security in Benghazi.

The Republican-Conservative candidate for the assembly against Helene Weinstein in the 41st AD ( not C.E. ! ) says that “The rainbow is a sign that God is keeping His promise to Noah” — thus he implies that divine wrath, as well as God’s mercy and forgiveness, were an essential component in the death and destruction “rained down” upon the New York Metropolitan Area for its evil ways

If there were any prophets in the Twenty-first Century, C.E., those prophets would use facebook to speak divine admonition and truth to the people — just like the Republican-Conservative candidate for the NYS Assembly Joseph Hayon.

Joseph Hayon is a strong family values social conservative and a fully involved member of the Orthodox Jewish Community. He has now shown himself to be willing to use the words of an Elohistic and Yahwistic tradition to explain the true meaning of that meteorological transmogrification, appropriately named with the androgynous appellation “Sandy,” that was diverted as if by an unseen hand to flood large swaths of the West Village and Chelsea, and almost all of the centers of recreation and profit in this massive metropolitan “Kingdom of the Wicked” that tolerated for a generation so much epicene excess, impiety, paganism and perverse idolatry in its precincts.

Amid several supportive texts, and reverently responsive explicit comments, to be expected the willful and arrogant are raising their fists at Hayon and sadly they are hardening their hearts against the source of Hayon's moral might.

Monday, October 29, 2012

If being a conservative Republican candidate for public office were to be made into a criminal offense, would there be any evidence to indict Tom McCarthy, the hand-picked candidate of Kings County Republican Chairman Craig Eaton and Brooklyn Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar.

I saw good old Tom McCarthy putting one of his posters in a store window on Fourth Avenue near 100th Street last Saturday; so there is at least a scintilla of evidence that he is running for some office. My memory and my Google search also confirm that Mr. McCarthy had won a Republican primary over a month ago to run for the Assembly against the Democrat incumbent Alec Brook-Krasney, so the evidence seems to be piling up in favor of a prima facie indictment.

However, if Tom McCarthy were to go before a panel of Grand Jurors and say what he said at a recent debate with Brook-Krasney, could they in good conscience indict McCarthy for being a conservative Republican?

Here’s some of what McCarthy said in the debate at the Fort Hamilton Senior Center, organized by the Bay Ridge Council on Aging, on October 17 ( from the 10-24-12 report of Denise Romano in the Home Reporter ):

>>>> “I bring to the table a background in banking and finance.... I am running because I am passionate about this place we call home. I want this to be a place to raise a family and grow old.”

>>>> “I am committed to public education but am also supportive of charter schools.... We need a balanced solution. Competition is good.... [I would like to see an inspector general on the state level to] investigate all education programs to make sure that money is being spent wisely.”

>>>> [ When a constituent asked how each candidate could stop the trend of high rent and closing storefronts, McCarthy said ] “We need rent stabilization to protect tenants, but need to do a lot more in terms of building new apartments as well as helping small businesses.”

>>>> [ When the Democrat incumbent Brook-Krasny asked McCarthy if a miracle happened and McCarthy won, what would be the first bill that McCarthy would propose for himself and how he would pass it. In response to that McCarthy said he was “not really sure,” but that he would like to be part of the effort to create oversight to oversee Medicare and Medicaid; [adding that] the solution of getting things done… is to work across the aisle.”

>>>> [In his closing remarks, McCarthy said it was] “imperative to get our financial house in order; [and he promised that] “I will work as diligently as I can for you.”

As you can see, giving the normal meaning to the words of Tom McCarthy as to who he is and what he thinks is important as a candidate, a conscientious Grand Jury could never hand down a true bill against Thomas McCarthy for being any kind of conservative Republican candidate for public office. So I have to ask in the classic Brooklyn GOP style, made famous in the salons by Eaton’s solons, “The question begs — why was Thomas McCarthy picked to run against Alec Brook-Krasny in the first place ? McCarthy didn’t even object to or try to turn the tables on Brook-Krasny’s “smartAlec” remark, “If a miracle happens and you win....”

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Sunday feature in the "New York Post -- Brooklyn Weekly" highlights Jerry Kassar's showing his own silly side during what he calls the "Silly Season" by jumping in on the Golden-signed letter about surveillance at places of worship

On Thursday, October 25, 2012, in my post below, “Pressures of local politics cause State Senator Golden to go soft on the terrorist threat in our midst — a squishy Golden becomes a pouting weak sister in his support for NYPD’s anti-terrorist intelligence and surveillance operation” I had mentioned that State Senator Martin Golden had apparently flip- flopped in his support of an NYPD operation that had targeted for close surveillance certain terrorist suspects at their places of worship and other gathering places. In that post, I mentioned that several local reporters and/or bloggers had reported that Andrew Gounardes had called Golden out on his rather obvious reversal while speaking to a largely Muslim audience at a candidate’s forum sponsored by the Arab-American Association of New York. One of those reporter/bloggers was Will Bredderman, whose article appeared in The Brooklyn Paper and whose post of that material appeared at various other sites including BrooklynPaper.com and Feedage.com.

The most recent iteration of the Will Bredderman’s piece was the one that appeared in the Sunday New York Post at The New York Post – Brooklyn Weekly for October 28, 2012; that article was entitled: “Golden: Spying is Fine Sometimes – Tells Arab-American group mosque-watching is bad, but letter he signed says otherwise”

The reason for this update is that Bredderman’s most recent version specifically mentioned my friend Jerry Kassar’s October 17, 2012 “Common Sense” column (for the week of October 18th in the Home Reporter), which had not been mentioned in my earlier post below about the same material. According to Bredderman’s remarks about the Kassar column, “... Golden[‘s] chief-of-staff Jerry Kassar came to the senator’s defense in his weekly “Common Sense” column in the Home Reporter newspaper, declaring that the Hikind-Golden letter in no way endorsed spying on mosques. “The letter said nothing of the sort,” Kassar wrote, though he didn’t include any quotes from the document or explain what he believed it really said. Kassar did not respond to requests for comment.”

Well, that’s all easy enough to check....

But first here’s what Kassar said about all this in his “Common Sense” column, along with some related material for context:
“The Marty Golden vs. Andrew Gounardes appearances featured some hot exchanges with Senator Golden and his campaign raising concerns about Andrew’s inaccurate information concerning voting records and positions. *** As an individual who works in Albany during session on Senator Golden’s legislative agenda, I found the misrepresentations shocking because the information to disprove Gounardes charges is so readily available. I understand that the senator’s campaign has provided several members of the media with the proof. *** One glaring example involved a letter sent to Police Commissioner Kelly and released to the press supporting NYPD efforts to monitor terrorist organizations. Gournardes at the Arab American Association forum referenced the letter and said it showed that Senator Golden supported the spying by the NYPD on mosques. The letter said nothing of the sort. *** The last weeks of political campaigns are often desperate times for candidates that are fighting uphill battles. The late State Senator Chris Mega used to call it the “silly season” because lies and half truths paid for by the underdogs often arrive by mail in your home or on your phone answering machine each day. *** It is easy enough to research a legislator’s record and there are some excellent good government groups like the venerable Citizens Union that interview candidates and issue recommendations.” That’s fine advice, and you’ll find a copy of the letter signed by Golden at: http://www.vosizneias.com/115160/2012/10/18/brooklyn-ny-marty-golden-now-says-he-opposes-nypds-spying-program. A lone comment maker at Kassar’s Common Sense” site provided that link in his rejoinder to Kassar, in which the comment maker completely disagreed with what Kassar had to say about the meaning and import of the Golden letter praising the NYPD surveillance at houses of worship.

An edited excerpt of the Golden-signed letter reads as follows: "Although many of the reports have been critical of the NYPD’s tactics, we, elected officials of New York City and State, write to you today to applaud you and the NYPD for using all means at your disposal to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11 from occurring. We admire you for going to precisely the source of the problem….
At the same time, we encourage you to investigate any church, synagogue, or business, which may pose a threat to the safety and well-being of our society."

Yes, it is indeed “Silly Season” and that includes for Golden, his campaign and his staff. Btw, by all means do the research about State Senator Golden’s record that Mr. Kassar recommends — you might be surprised at what you’ll find; and maybe Kassar and Golden are hoping that you just won’t do it.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

The posting of Joseph Hayon's Press Release,"NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY CANDIDATE JOSEPH HAYON BLAMES HELENE WEINSTEIN, DEAN SKELOS FOR RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION" and a critical responding post by Jonathan Judge, entitled, “Can our economy thrive when ‘Liberty’ is not for all?” prompts a spirited debate on the Brooklyn Young Republican Club home page

A few days ago the Brooklyn Young Republican Club almost verbatim posted a provocative press release submitted by Joseph Hayon, the Republican-Conservative candidate running for the 41st AD Assembly seat now held by Helene Weinstein. The main line of attack in Hayon’s release was against his opponent Ms. Weinstein, but in addition Hayon made an oblique attack on the GOP State Senate Majority Leader, Dean Skelos. As a cudgel against Weinstein and Skelos, Hayon used the recent case brought by a lesbian couple against a New York State businessman, who had refused to allow the lesbian couple to book his “farm” for their wedding, the businessman citing religious objections as his reason for the refusal. According to Mr. Hayon, who is an Orthodox Jew and is running as a strong family values conservative, the use of the New York State Law permitting Gay Marriage in this manner is an attack on religious freedom and constitutes religious persecution.

Yesterday, Jonathan Judge, the Chairman of the Board of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club, posted an issue based rebuttal to the Joseph Hayon press release that had appeared on the BYRC blog, citing free market economics and the Republican Party’s historical position in favor of equal rights under the law. An interesting debate ensued in the comments following the post by Mr. Judge, stressing libertarian concepts of freedom of association, the freedom to contract and the free use of one’s property as the main arguments against Judge’s position. The commentary included several comments by the well known Brooklyn Libertarian-Republican, Gary Popkin.

Nothing like the competing posts and commentary that appeared on the Brooklyn Young Republican Club home page has been observed on any of the blogs operated by the establishment GOP of Chairman Craig Eaton.

Amid claims that the White House failed to send help quickly enough as militants overran the consular mission, several of the highest officials in the Obama administration have attempted to defend the Administration as a whole, as well as stand up for their individual agencies’ responses to the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The Newsday article demonstrates that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi leaks and disclosures are getting recognized in the main stream media ( “Benghazi attack: Libya claims put White House on defensive” AP Report in Newsday, October 27, 2012). Newsday’s coverage is based upon several of the disclosures aired on Fox News during this last week. Although Fox has been a stalwart on the Benghazi story, it is not the only news operation staying on top of the various developments coming out of Libya and Washington.

First, there has been a disclosure that before the Benghazi attack Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had specifically “ordered” additional security and that somebody at the White House had denied or failed to implement that “request.” Another breaking story, involved what happened during the attack on the Benghazi “mission” was in progress. According to assets on the ground at the “safe house,” CIA operatives had repeatedly called for authorization to assist those under attack at the consulate and for military backup for those threatened in Benghazi. The response from those somewhere higher up in the command structure was to was to specifically and repeatedly deny the CIA assets at the “safe house” permission to assist those at the “consulate” and also not to authorize the dispatch of the nearest rapid reaction force to Benghazi.

For a few days there have been reports that someone in the private (outside the Administration) legal team for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has leaked to reporter Ed Klein that Secretary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it had been attacked, but that President Obama denied the request — and all of this was before four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been killed there by Al-Qaeda (“Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no” posted on 10/25/12 in “examiner.com” by Christopher Ciollins). This story first broke during a Tuesday night interview of Klein by Andrew Wilkow at The BlazeTV ( “Ed Klein: Obama’s Libya Lie?” 10/24/12 at //video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25445923&source=THEBLAZE//);

As has been posted here earlier, according to Ed Klein, the Clintons are not happy with the “Chicago gang” in the White House that is trying desperately to assure that no blame for the Benghazi disaster falls on President Obama. Realizing that the Chicago forces were looking to place the blame on Hillary, Klein has reported that Bill Clinton set up a personal legal team for the Secretary of State earlier in the development of the Benghazi story. Klein’s new revelation to Andrew Wilkow on his Tuesday show was that the Clinton legal team had looked through cable traffic between the Benghazi mission/consulate and State Department, and the record of cable traffic supports the claim that Secretary Clinton actually had asked for security to be beefed up and “somewhere in the Obama Administration that order wasn’t carried out” ( “ED KLEIN: CLINTON LEGAL TEAM REVIEWS CABLES — CLAIM HILLARY REQUEST FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY ‘WASN’T CARRIED OUT’” posted on “TheBlaze” October 23, 2012 by Christopher Santarelli ). A follow-up piece in The Blaze went further and said that former President Bill Clinton was urging Secretary of State Clinton to come forward with the full record of those requests (“ED KLEIN: BILL CLINTON ‘URGING’ HILLARY TO RELEASE BENGHAZI DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD ‘EXONERATE’ HER, DESTROY OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION HOPES” posted by Jason Howerton in The Blaze on October 25, 2012). Also according to that follow-up piece, any request by Secretary of State Clinton would have gone through CIA Special Ops and/or the Pentagon, requiring the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States Tom Donilon to report on that to President Obama, who would have conferred with Valerie Jarrett and key members of the Obama Campaign in Chicago.

Another unraveling thread in the blanket being thrown over the whole Benghazi affair by the Obama Administration involves a story that was broken yesterday by Fox News, that CIA operatives at the so-called “safe house” had twice sought permission to assist the “consulate compound” after it had come under attack and twice had been ordered to “stand down.” In addition, the report indicated that those on the ground at the safe house had called for additional military backup at that time (“EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say” by Jennifer Griffin, October 26, 2012 at FoxNews.com
//....foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AXHLFS48 //). According to the Griffin/Fox report, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods [who was killed later on in the fighting] and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate/mission compound “... which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.”

According to Jennifer Griffin, “CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.” However later Fox News reports and commentary have made the specific observation that the CIA denials are quite carefully parsed and specifically state that the CIA did not turn down any requests for additional support to Benghazi.

Perhaps in anticipation of a bombshell like the Griffin/Fox report, on Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had indicated U.S. military assets did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk ( “Panetta: Military lacked enough information to intervene during Benghazi attack” posted on FoxNews.com. October 26, 2012, from Associated Press //....foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2AXMod5rt // ).

Fox characterized the Secretary of Defense’s Thursday comments as, “...His most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi.” In those remarks, “Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really happening. *** "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” Other Fox commentators have criticized the SecDef Panetta’s remarks as a reiteration of other Obama Administration talking points, inconsistent with many of the facts already disclosed, and generally lacking substance and candor.

Friday, October 26, 2012

New revelations from CIA sources show that CIA operatives in Benghazi were ordered not to assist the "Consulate" compound while it was under attack and a special reaction military unit was held back about one hour from Benghazi

It is being reported by Fox News that after the beginning of the attack on the so-called "consulate" compound in Benghazi, the "CIA" operatives hold up at the "safe house" had sought authorization from their superiors to assist those under attack in the consulate compound. At least twice, that authorization was denied and the "CIA" operatives were ordered to "stand down".

Shortly thereafter, and against orders, the CIA operatives moved from the "safe house" to assist those under attack at the consulate. The rescue effort was only partially successful and two of the "CIA" operatives were killed in the attempt.

In addition, there was a U.S. military special response team positioned at the Signorella Naval Air Station in Sicily, about one hour flying time from Benghazi, that was not released to reinforce or assist the "consulate". The consulate compound was eventually reached by a reaction team sent from Tripoli that arrived after the attacks had ceased.

Why is the Benghazi 9/11 Scandal too big to get fully exposed before the election?

How big a scandal would it be if it had elements of these scandals and/or crises mixed in as part of its DNA: “The Bay of Pigs”; “Watergate”; “Iran-Contra”; “Monica Lewinsky”; and “Fast and Furious” — now add in an Al Qaeda-related operation on 9/11; a secret meeting with a Turkish envoy; a dead U.S. Ambassador with three other dead American “agents” of variously described provenance; the forced evacuation of a CIA station of very high strategic importance; and the U.S. State Department, various U.S. intelligence agencies, other Executive Departments, the White House and a Presidential re-election team, all doing everything they could to keep it all very small until after the Presidential Election (almost two months off at the start and the clock ticking down since 9/11/12) ?

It could be big, couldn’t it ?

Some interesting reading: “GLENN BECK CONNECTS THE DOTS IN BENGHAZI ATTACK: ‘THIS IS FAST AND FURIOUS TIMES 1,000'” Posted by Jason Howerton on The Blaze, October 24, 2012; “CIA's exit from Benghazi, Libya, draws criticism from ex-officers...” by Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times, September 25, 2012;

Thursday, October 25, 2012

GOP Candidate Russell Gallo missed his chance to do a Clint Eastwood on the chair left vacant by incumbent Democrat Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz and the rest of his performance went down from that

According to Ned Burke’s post on the Sheepshead Bay Bites blog, sans Cymbrowitz, the Manhattan Beach Community Group’s town hall forum with Ben Akselrod and Russ Gallo was a debate where it appeared that everyone agreed on everything. Almost but not quite !!!

The whole affair lacked both heat and light, possibly that was because there was almost no life in the room. Not only was the “debate” missing its key player, Steve Cymbrowitz, the room seldom burst with applause, other than the shallow enthusiasm coming from the few supporters of the other two candidates. It was illustrative that one of the most animated moments of the discussion was when both of the candidates who were present in the room did give serious and honest reasons why the other didn’t have an actual path to victory over the missing incumbent, Steven Cymbrowitz. They probably were both right.

It’s shocking that a candidate like Russell Gallo, who has run in several elections, did not have a bigger and better stage presence, especially when confronted by an empty chair to his left and a live body to his right, who had to deal with a thick accent and English as a second language. Too often during the questioning which lasted just over an hour, Mr. Gallo seemed annoyed that he had to answer certain questions; and two or three times he even seemed to be a scold who was blaming the electorate as a whole for not being more aware of what was going on in the campaign or that the citizenry was responsible because the New York State Legislature was ethically challenged and subject to lax standards with little effective oversight.

On the whole, Ben Akselrod did a better job answering the questions as a person who had worked in and for the community in various jobs prior to running for the assembly. Gallo more or less repeated what he always says about his background, that he was a veteran of the war in Iraq and that he’s been a DOT police officer. Akselrod’s answers were down to earth and real. Gallo’s were a combination of simplistic and generalized GOP talking points, with an occasional remark that showed how he is a nerd whose hobby is listening to AM talk radio in his spare time.

Perhaps the most disappointing moments for me were when Russell Gallo gave rote answers as to why he, as a Republican, could be effective as a minority legislator in Albany. Two or three times he showed that he was drunk on some real bizarre Jonestown Juice — saying that he would be part of a Republican team that included Congressman Bob Turner, State Senators Golden and Storobin and Member of the Assembly Nicole Malliotakis, apparently unaware that half of those probably would not be in office by the time that Gallo would be sworn in, if he should by some stroke of magic win. He even made up a whopper that Nicole Malliotakis had sponsored many bills that had been passed by the Assembly.

Why did Russell Gallo refer to these few, these very few, as the team that would be working with for his district and his community? Doesn’t Gallo know that the Republican team includes more than the few elected GOP officials endorsed by the Brooklyn GOP organization of Republican Chairman Craig Eaton?

Mr. Gallo showed that he was just like too many of the candidates being run by the Brooklyn GOP Establishment lately — a mere place holder — somebody with no real background for the position, and with no plan and no hope of winning. Akselrod showed that he had a background for the job of assemblyman, a connection to the community, and that even though he was a candidate on the Independence line, he really is a Democrat and that maybe he will beat Cymbrowitz — in 2014 not 2012.

While campaigning among Muslims, State Senator Martin Golden looks like he has stabbed cops and his most loyal supporters in the back --- reversing himself and withdrawing his prior public support of a key component of the police department’s counter-terrorism efforts, which included infiltrating and eavesdropping on Muslim places of worship and other possible gathering places for radical Islamist terrorists

The intensifying coverage of State Senator Martin Golden is giving the informed and discerning public a different picture of the long-time Republi-Con incumbent than the one we're used to or the one that many say they "know and love" --- more and more Republicans and other conservative minded supporters are asking the white haired state senator over and over --- "Marty, what's the story?" An interesting recent case in point is Golden’s shifting stance on what some critics had described as an intrusive police department program of maintaining surveillance over Muslims around and inside their places of worship.

State Senator Golden is thought to be a reliable supporter of the NYPD generally, and its anti-terrorist, homeland security and intelligence operations in particular. However, it now looks like the hard-campaigning efforts of Andrew Gounardes, the routinely liberal Democratic candidate now running against Golden, have succeeded in putting a wedge between Golden and one of the NYPD’s programs that Golden formerly actively supported.

Here’s the proof of State Senator Golden’s apparent reversal on the NYPD’s anti-terrorist program of surveillance at mosques and other gathering places for Muslims according to some recent coverage in blogs and local newspapers: “Critics claim incumbent flip-flopping on cops watching mosques” by Will Bredderman in The Brooklyn Paper on October 24, 2012 ; “Golden NYPD Letter Contradicts Statement On Mosque Spying” posted by Joe Teutonico on The Bay Ridge Odyssey on October 24, 2012; with earlier coverage by Shadi Bushra’s and Elaine Mao’s, “Sen. Golden Comes Out Against Counterterrorism Surveillance of Mosques at Arab-American Candidate’s Forum,” posted by BrooklynCampaign.com Staff [in District 22] on October 11, 2012.

The gist of that reportage is that Golden flip-flopped on this very critical issue of national and local security, as follows. Sometime in October, 2011, Golden joined in a letter to NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, which had been put together by Assemblyman Dov Hikind and signed with other officials. That letter said, in part: “We admire you for going to precisely the source of the problem. The NYPD has wisely embraced the cold reality that heinous acts of terrorism have been, and will continue to be, attempted or committed by radical Muslims .…” However, at a candidate’s forum sponsored by the Arab-American Association of New York, Golden apparently changed his tune by saying, “Anybody that would spy on any religious institution is absolutely wrong, I do not stand by anybody who would do that.” Golden continued, “If [Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly] has [done that], he should apologize — but it hasn’t been proven that he has.”

Taking the microphone shortly after Golden had spoken, Andrew Gounardes, Golden’s Democratic Party opponent, said that despite Golden’s response opposition to spying on religious institutions to the gathering largely made up of Muslims, in the past Golden had sent a letter to Commissioner Kelly “praising him” for exactly those kinds of efforts. Gounardes then said that while he was glad Golden had eventually changed his position, the voters gathered there should know that Golden had not always been on their side of the issue of intrusive police surveillance of Muslims in and outside of New York City.

Since Golden made his remarks at the forum hosted by the Arab American Association of New York, Golden’s campaign manager Jeffrey Kraus has stated Golden’s recent answer at the candidate forum was completely consistent with the joint letter Golden had sent along with Dov Hikind
to Commissioner Kelly. Kraus said, “Our opponent’s claim that we are changing our position is just plain fantasy....” Krause continued that if “probable cause leads NYPD to a house of worship, then they have a responsibility to protect Americans.” Nonetheless, according to Joe Teutonico posting on The Bay Ridge Odyssey, the letter to Police Commisioner Kelly, made no reference to probable cause, – which, is a legal standard for justifying specific police searches and seizures. Teutonico also pointed out that the letter to Kelly had also been signed by some other politicians as well as Assemblyman Dov Hikind and State Senator Golden.

Bottom line, in a effort to pander to a specific ethnic audience, Martin Golden has again flip-flopped on a position of especial concern to a broad swath of Golden’s long-time conservative Republican supporters (just like on 2nd Amendment gun issues). Unlike the relative narrow reach of Golden’s other flip-flops; his apparent recent switch on the issue of the NYPD's "intrusive surveillance" of potential terrorists is one with an actual life and death importance to all of State Senator Golden’s constituents. All of that is irrespective of any general constitutional or libertarian concerns that may of us might hold on the one hand and/or issues of specific ethnic and religious bigotry and discrimination felt by particular citizens and groups on the other.

If Golden gets this squishy when pressed by an otherwise routinely packaged Democratic opponent like Andrew Gounardes, how far left might Golden shift on other key issues for conservatives and Republicans if somebody like Gounardes were to be able to run a well-targeted and well-financed campaign against Golden? If only to keep Golden’s spine solid on important conservative issues, there must be a real candidate to the right of State Senator Golden on the ballot throughout any of his future campaigns for re-election; that should be as the Conservative Party Candidate or on some other righteous conservative line that might be available. That is, all assuming Martin Golden might decide to ever run again.

This time Eaton’s exhibitionism was all about trying to embrace Democrats from President Obama on down to a few mayoral candidates while the other GOP Chairmen look on with very moist palms — everything about it was typical of Eaton and that’s what’s wrong with him as the Brooklyn GOP Chairman

Since my headline above opened with this recent addition to the Kings County Republican Chairman Craig Eaton’s bummed-up story, this would seem like a good place to start. In a bit of a followup to his earlier reporting on the event, the Politicker’s Colin Campbell yesterday wrote, “One fun moment from Monday’s Brooklyn GOP gathering was when Chairman Craig Eaton described meeting Mitt Romney at the Al Smith Dinner. According to Mr. Eaton’s telling of the story, President Barack Obama, overhearing the two Republicans talking, interrupted to say, ‘There’re no Republicans in Brooklyn!’ Mr. Eaton said he responded, ‘Mr. President, we have more than a 115,000 Republicans in Brooklyn, and they’re all going to vote for President Romney!’ Mr. Obama apparently put his hand down for a handshake but turned it into a ‘big hug’ between the two instead.” ( Colin or Craig left the rest of the evening’s gaiety and what might have transpired thereafter to our imaginations. )

From what I’ve seen and heard about “The Great I Am” Eaton, this was a vintage moment — not what might or might not have happened at the Al Smith Dinner ( Good luck to Colin Campbell second-sourcing that tidbit!), but the telling of the tale at the meeting of GOP Chairmen and “prospective GOP candidates” at the Brooklyn Bar Association on Monday night past. For a guy like Eaton this was a double-dog prime-time name drop — “While chatting with Mitt Romney, President Obama interrupted, blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah; and I answered, blah, blah, blah ...blah, blah, blah...” If it happened, Eaton must’ve thought he’d died and gone to heaven.

Anyway, did Eaton think he was bragging about 115,000 Republicans in Brooklyn? Next time Craig Eaton is having a chinwag with his bros, Mitt and Barack, he should come up with a more manly number.

As for the meeting and the huddled masses yearning to breath Republican, Mr. Campbell’s piece from a coupla-days ago, “PAINTING THE TOWN RED – New York Republicans Look Towards 2013” seemed descriptive enough to show, yet again, how far the NYC GOP has fallen. Only two prospective candidates showed up: Malcolm Smith, a Democrat; and “newly-minted Republican,” Manhattan liberal Tom Allon. All of it was just enough to prove that Colin Campbell, or his headline editor, made a mistake and should have entitled the feature, “PAINTING THE GOP BLUE – New York Republicans Look Towards 2013”.

If Republicans want to get back to their last days of the semblance of some power in this town, they need to back a Giuliani-style Republican for Mayor and not give any of their County-wide lines to any Democrats, like DA Hynes, for example. Any other course would doom the Brooklyn GOP to the permanent status of a 115,000 party in a county the size of America’s fourth-largest city.

Closing with a bit of whimsy.... Even Gatemouth was able to chime in on all the festivities mentioned above by doing a riff on the Eaton’s Al Smith Dinner – Name Drop along with the spirit and a spirt of silly-jism : “Love and hugs are clearly all around. The President even hugged Brooklyn GOP Chair Craig Eaton (he would have hugged .... [name removed to protect the circumferentially gifted] as well, but his arms aren't that long). *** Obama hugs Eaton; Gatemouth hugs Judge [from another item in Gatemouth’s blog]; but will Eaton ever hug Judge?”

In a press release posted on Facebook by Joseph Hayon, the Brooklyn GOP candidate for the NYS Assembly running against Helene Weinstein in the 41st AD launched an anti-Gay Marriage attack against his Democratic Party opponent, which was to be expected, and also against the Republican Leader of the NYS Senate, which obviously was completely unexpected.

Hayon started by citing a recent NYS Division of Human Rights case brought by a lesbian couple against a New York State “business owner,” Robert Gifford, who had refused to allow the use of a farm for the wedding of the couple on the ground that conducting such a marriage violated his religious beliefs. After noting that recent item, Hayon pointed out that, “More than half of the people whom Helene Weinstein currently represents believe it is a sin to accommodate a sin. Weinstein did not care to protect our religious freedom. Instead she voted for a gay marriage bill that persecutes religious people.” In his conclusion to the attack on Weinstein, the Brooklyn GOP Assembly candidate said, “If the Division of Human [Rights could] determine that Gifford discriminated, Gifford could be forced to pay a fine for acting according to his faith.”

Some GOPers have said if Hayon’s release had ended there, “...it should have been enough....” As the socially conservative candidate of the Brooklyn GOP and Gerry Kassar’s Kings County Conservative Party, most say that such an attack against Weinstein would have been expected, and thus not really subjected to criticism. However, Hayon didn’t stop there. He continued his socially conservative attack on those who caused the Gay Marriage Bill to become law with a direct verbal assault on the Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. According to Mr. Hayon, “Shortly before the gay ‘marriage’ bill passed, people affiliated with Jews for Morality met with Dean Skelos, warned him of the consequences, and Skelos still allowed this small business killing legislation for a vote. Skelos failed NYS citizens as a leader of the Senate.”

Some believe that Hayon broadened his attack to the Republican Senate Leader Skelos to benefit or at the behest of Republican State Senator David Storobin, who is now running against Simcha Felder, the Democrat-Conservative Parties’ candidate who is being supported by Dean Skelos.

The buzz is that Hayon is getting serious blowback on this release from two separate and distinct sources — some Orthodox Jewish supporters of Weinstein, who claim to be against gay marriage — and several organization-type Republicans for the attack on Republican State Senate Majority Leader Skelos.

An interesting question is whether State Senator Martin Golden will run along with Hayon in about twenty EDs that Golden shares with Hayon in the 41st AD, or ignore Hayon and stick with GOP Senate Leader Skelos, his boss in the State Senate. Golden has been mentioned as a possible alternative to Skelos as GOP leader in the State Senate and Golden claims to have been strongly against gay marriage in the past. However, according to a very active person in the Storobin campaign, Golden's stock has fallen on that count lately, especially among certain members of the Orthodox Jewish Community, who have been newly put into Golden's SD.

Independent Republican activist and GOP leader Lucretia Regina-Potter highlighted one of the LaGuardia Club's alliances by its hi-five of the BYRC for its feature coverage in the NY Post

Lucretia Regina-Potter, GOP leader of the 49th AD and one of the GOP State Committee Members now active in the new 46th AD, sent out the following press release along with copy of the October 19th NY Post article: "Meet Brooklyn's Young Republicans..." by Chris Erikson:

For Immediate Release

By: Lucretia Regina-Potter, Republican District Leader 49AD

The leadership of the Fiorello LaGuardia Republican Organization is very pleased and proud that our friends and supporters from the Brooklyn Young Republican Club are finally being recognized for their hard work and dedication to the Republican cause in Brooklyn by a popular N.Y. newspaper,The NY Post.

In particular we congratulate, BYRC President, Glenn Nocera, and BYRC Vice-President, Moshe Muratov who have personally joined with our organization in our efforts to assert true Republicanism in Brooklyn. Our beleaguered Republican Party in Kings County needs strong and energetic people like those of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club so that together with the LaGuardia Republican Organization, we will continue to raise the banner of a renewed and vigorous Brooklyn GOP!

Today the NY Post presented a feature-length look at the traditional and now independent -- Brooklyn Young Republican Club -- as it and the rest of the Brooklyn GOP heads into this very problematic 2012 election. The club’s leadership of Glenn Nocera, Jonathan Judge, Paul Hanson and Moshe Muratov express hope and vision for a new Brooklyn GOP — and feistiness and resolve against the old Kings County Republican cabal

Picture Glenn Nocera as Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie or Jefferson Travis heroically holding out against overwhelming forces at “The Alamo” ! That’s the first image in an article in the October 19th NY Post by Chris Erickson, entitled: “Meet Brooklyn's Young Republicans — The brave young conservatives who are stumping the people of Brooklyn.”

Even though the first part of the Post’s coverage of the Brooklyn YR Club largely focuses on the club’s President Glenn Nocera, the bulk of the feature is about the club and its members -- what they do and the problems they face. According to the Post, “Today, members meet monthly to hear speakers and ‘talk about topics of the day and how we should move forward into the future,’ says Nocera, who majored in political science at Brooklyn College and now works for campus security. (He’s also run for office twice: for state Assembly in 1998 and state Senate in 2008.) Members also raise money and occasionally hit the streets for local candidates.”

The vagueness of the tag line. “... The brave young conservatives who are stumping the people of Brooklyn.” sounds like it might have been the tongue in cheek suggestion of Jonathan Judge, the, former President and now Chairman of the Brooklyn GOP club. He was covered and quoted in Chris Erickson’s article as follows: “Of course, stumping for a GOP presidential candidate in these parts can be a fraught pursuit. Jonathan Judge, who ran the club for three years before stepping down last year, recalls the horrified reactions he got while stumping for George W. Bush in 2008. *** ‘It was more from older people,’ says Judge, 26. ‘They’d look at me like I was single-handedly destroying the United States of America’.”

The experience of one of the club’s newest leaders, Paul Hanson, formerly from Long Island, is also similar now that he has moved to Greenpoint and tries to be an active Republican in Brooklyn. According to the Post he’s a good fit with Nocera, Judge and company after he “found a political home when he heard about the club last year and showed up at a meeting.”

The Brooklyn Young Republican Club leadership are portrayed as realists, who often have to buck up against a bad Republican organization in Brooklyn. The Post report indicated that, “Efforts to wave the flag for the man at the top of the GOP ticket have been frustrated by the Romney campaign’s failure to deliver promotional materials — a big point of aggravation for Nocera, who attributes the lack of response in part to a belief that Brooklyn’s not worth any significant effort. *** Look, even though this city is, so to speak, a lost cause, if people who come here see a Romney sign, it sends a message... [but] All I see is Obama-Biden stickers all over the place, and it’s driving me crazy.” Nocera was also frank about his other problems with the rest of the Brooklyn GOP. According to the Post report, “To add to the club’s enemies list, it faces opposition within its own party: There’s a second young GOP group, Brooklyn Young Republicans, that’s more closely tied to Brooklyn’s party leadership. The relationship between the two clubs is fractious, and prone to getting mired in what Nocera bemoans as ‘petty crap.’ *** ‘We can’t afford to fight each other when the real enemy is the Democrat Party and we’re outnumbered,’ he says.”

One of the Brooklyn YR President’s big problems with the party organization run by Kings County Republican Chair Craig Eaton is its failure to reach out and expand the base. Nocera sees real potential for building the GOP’s base in the borough, especially in socially conservative immigrant communities. And no matter what the reception, Nocera says, “You have to get your message out and try to build your base. You don’t just go into the fetal position.” The Post feature demonstrated that those sentiments were echoed by others in the club, pointing out that — “Club vice president Moshe Muratov likes the ‘“challenge of converting people’.”

Glenn Nocera and the Brooklyn Young Republican Club also received some nice coverage in a feature post by Matthew Vann on the blog “The BrooklynInk. We’ve Got Brooklyn Covered” — that piece is entitled: “The Loneliest People in Politics”

Thursday, October 18, 2012

A good buddy from the Brooklyn Young Republican Club gave me a "heads up" about our old friend Joseph Hayon's recent "press" release on Face Book.

Here's my edited report of what I think Hayon was trying to get publicized.

The decision in Windsor v. United States,handed down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, invalidating on constitutional grounds, the federal government's right not to recognize same sex marriages is a serious threat to the religious freedom of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and of all other faiths. This court decision is part of a trend, which if not reversed, will lead to a spiritual Holocaust in America, where all people of faith will be prohibited from professing their religious beliefs and moral teachings, or even reading passages from scriptures like Leviticus.

What the next phase will be, has already occurred in Canada. There the Archbishop of Calgary was forced to answer to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for preaching his Church's teaching on marriage. If we don't act now, it is just a matter of time before that happens here in Brooklyn and across the rest of the United States !

That Federal Court decision was arrived at, because in fewer than ten states across the United States, legislative leaders and all those elected officials in all the states that redefined marriage threw their citizens under the bus. New York State was no exception, leaders like Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and legislators like Joseph Hayon's opponent, Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, all joined in committing the moral outrage of allowing or engineering the passage of a change in the law in New York to permit the marriage of persons of the same sex.

According to Joseph Hayon, Same Sex or "Gay" marriage must be repealed in NY today.

Contact: Joseph Hayon at 347-692-5364

Joseph Hayon is an Orthodox Jewish Republican/Conservative/Independence candidate for NYS Assembly in Southern Brooklyn. He is endorsed by State Senator Ruben Diaz and over 20 rabbis in Southern Brooklyn. In 2010 in an underfunded campaign for the NYS Assembly, Mr. Hayon obtained a higher vote than any other Republican running for a Brooklyn Assembly seat.

As we've reported about Mr. Hayon in the past, he runs his socially conservative family values stealth campaigns on the cheap and he has gotten some good results in prior campaigns for himself and/or other with similar values.

Two part feature was mostly what anybody might expect from an LGBT blog interview of a routinely liberal Democrat Candidate for State Senate running against a Republican-Conservative incumbent — I also gleaned a pair of insights that were both interesting and depressing for a conservative Republican from Bay Ridge

A link contained in a Colin Campbell post in Politicker hooked me up to a two part interview by Henry Stewart in “The L Magazine” posted on October 17th and 18th. The lengthy question and answer format was not my favorite, but the two-parter was rather informative as to a lot of the who, what, where and why of Andrew Gounardes’ run against State Senator Martin Golden.

Generally, Andrew Gounardes presents himself as a down to earth young urban professional. However, everything about him bespoke a pro-government liberal oriented careerist. Nothing that I read would motivate a single dedicated Republican and/or Conservative Party enrollee or any conservative-minded voter of any party to vote for Mr. Gounardes, unless, of course, they had an over-riding grudge or other animus against the incumbent State Senator, or thought that Golden was not a real agent for a conservative minded agenda; and I certainly know a lot of people who are holding tight to those various attitudes and/or that view.

Irrespective of any of that, I found this particular question and answer from Henry Stewart's interview of Mr. Gounardes to have been very interesting and simultaneously quite distressing.

Q: “Bay Ridge has a reputation as being pretty conservative. Do you think that's accurate?”

A: “I don't think that's true at all. I think that was true at one point, but this is a neighborhood that's changed dramatically. If you look at how the president did in 2008, just in Bay Ridge alone, he overwhelmingly won Bay Ridge. And across the entire district, he got 48.5 percent of the vote—which, 10 years ago, I don't think he gets. I don't think a president named Barack Obama gets 40 percent of the vote 10 years ago, and I don't think a Democrat named Joe Smith gets 40 percent of the vote. So it really has become more progressive, more Democratic. But there's also been a dramatic change in the face of Bay Ridge. We have a lot more younger families moving to the neighborhood who are getting priced out of other neighborhoods; we have younger professionals who are moving here, looking for a place to settle down, who can afford the rents in this neighborhood, who like that we have great restaurants and bars, a great waterfront, great park space and everything; we have a growing immigrant population. I forget where I read it—maybe I saw it on your site? But there was a link somewhere a few months ago saying that Bay Ridge and Bushwick were two of the most diverse neighborhoods in all of Brooklyn. And you wouldn't think that if you just have the stereotype of the old Bay Ridge in your mind. But if ride the buses or ride the subways or go to the restaurants, you see that Bay Ridge is very, very diverse. And there many different ethnicities here and different groups in the community. And it's going to continue to do that.”

I found the question and answer interesting because they showed that the superficial observations and the deeper insights of this young liberal-leaning Democrat candidate from Bay Ridge were not very different from the similar views of the Bay Ridge community held by several long-time Republican and Conservative activists and leaders from Bay Ridge. On the other hand, I found the answer distressing because I saw that the young liberal-leaning Democrat candidate was obviously willing to utilize the changing and changed social environment in Bay Ridge and to turn it to his own and his party’s advantage — or at least to describe that process in a thoughtful and well reasoned way. Doubly distressing was my knowledge that nobody in the existing Republican or Conservative Party superstructure is making any attempt to establish any party connection or to develop any party loyalty among the Bay Ridge newcomers. Instead those right-leaning parties and their candidates have chosen only to play on the insecurities of the decreasing numbers of increasingly isolated old timers in Bay Ridge and its neighboring communities that are similarly changing.

Unfortunately for Mr. Gounardes, there is one significant exception to that. State Senator Golden has made several personal linkages with certain Muslim and Asian leaders along with those of some other groups around the district. Those leaders and other contacts have succeeded in delivering some of the votes of some of those recently arrived in Bay Ridge and other parts of Golden's district . Eventually, that will not be enough against the more systematic Democratic Party inroads, but in 2012 it might be enough for a swan song.

A couple of birdies say that "The Jacob Kornbluh" is fingering Russell Gallo for doing a version of the David Storobin “Scrubbing the Record” trick along with other nits and lice

Some birdies came in over my open transom on this beautiful fall day. This is what those birdies chirped — they say they heard this from the horse's mouth and "on the record" from "TJK" himself --- Kornbluh doesn't want Gallo elected to anything, and right now that means Gallo's candidacy for the Assembly from the 45th AD.

For those who don't know, "The Jacob Kornbluh" a longtime ally of Gene Berardelli and Russell Gallo and a contributor to Brooklyn GOP [Blog] Radio (Kornbluh is still listed as a contributor to the Berardelli-Gallo "Brooklyn GOP Radio -Official- Show Blog") has had a falling out with his former blogging colleagues. This all appears to be so deep and complete that Kornbluh is working for Ben Akselrod, a registered Democrat, and campaigning directly against Gallo himself.

“The Jacob Kornbluh” has long been a strong vocal advocate of supporting the candidates advanced by the Brooklyn GOP leadership and endorsed by Kings County Republican Chairman Craig Eaton. For almost a year Kornbluh’s approach and advocacy was completely behind that “strategy” and it certainly “appeared” that his support helped the Brooklyn GOP in their signal successes in electing Bob Turner to Congress and David Storobin to the State Senate, delivering the primary vote for Mitt Romney (Kornbluh’s choice from the beginning) and delivering the Brooklyn GOP for Bob Turner in the US Senate Primary. My avian sources say that’s all over.

There are several reasons for this. But a lot of it has to do with Gallo's "My way..." approach to his race in the 45th AD and the very weak coordination with the races of other Republicans running in the 45th AD. Two incumbent GOP State Senators are keenly involved in the 45th AD; and at least one of them is now quite cool and distant from Gallo.

One specific item has been specifically attributed to Kornbluh — according to “TJK”, Berardelli and Gallo supposedly have purged several “problematic” Brooklyn GOP [Blog] Radio shows, those in which Russell Gallo made questionable statements and objectionable remarks. This is exactly the scrubbing charges that had been leveled by various outlets like Gatemouth on “Room Eight” that blew up against David Storobin early in his Special Election Campaign for the State Senate.

It now appears that GOP Assembly Candidate is guilty of exactly the same kind of scrubbing. Based on the charge leveled by Kornbluh, I checked the library of past Brooklyn GOP [Blog] Radio shows on Blog-Talk Radio. About a one year block is missing and there may also be several other individual shows that are gone. The “History” of shows linked on the "Brooklyn GOP Radio -Official- Show Blog" is even more restricted. Interestingly, one of the Brooklyn GOP [Blog] Radio shows that still can be heard is co-hosted by Berardelli and Kornbluh. Ironic, isn't it ?

Needless to say, Brooklyn GOP [Blog] Radio has not put on a new show for months.
I have called that Berardelli’s and Gallo’s “Radio Silence” — NOW IT LOOKS LIKE — Russell Gallo and Gene Berardelli are taking a page out of George Orwell’s “1984 ” and putting some of Gallo’s “best” stuff into the “Memory Hole”. Between his “Radio Silence” and “Memory Hole,” Gallo is trying to come off clean as a whistle. The only problem is that the only toot "Clean as a Whistle Gallo" now makes sounds a lot like what comes out of a dog whistle.

— Wait a minute! Isn’t that exactly the way Russell Gallo likes to make most of his noise anyway ?
Well, it seems that's how he like to campaign too.

Mitt Romney has had a real bounce after the FIRST debate ... first it showed as the GOP candidate’s getting back into the game ... then it showed as a trend in his direction ... And the numbers reflect the impact of the Biden-Ryan debate. However, this is way too early for that to show Mitt Romney pulling away from Barack Obama.

Any good coach would tell ou, “Keep playin’ like you’re trying to come from behind, because that’s what the other guy is doin’.”

There’s still almost three weeks to go until Election Day. The results of the SECOND Obama-Romney Debate (or as some GOPers suggest “The Obama-Romney-Crowley Debate”) have yet to be factored into any polls). Oh yeah! There is still the THIRD Debate to be held on Monday evening ( and Bob Schieffer of CBS News probably has brass knuckles, a rasp, mace, a Walther PPK, and a KGB-designed BB pellet injecting device to use on any candidate taking "unfair advantage" --- for this debate on foreign policy, "unfair advantage" means saying or doing anything that might make Mitt Romney look and/or sound better than President Obama in any way).

And of course — Unexpected EVENTS – Manufactured EVENTS – Taken Completely Out of Context EVENTS — Self-inflicted Unforced Error EVENTS – New takes on old EVENTS — possibly even MONUMENTAL OVERWHELMINGLY SIGNIFICANT EVENTS [like, let’s say something like this — After yesterday’s announcement that Iran had weaponized its nuke fuel, the U.S. and Israel are engaged in on-going large-scale air operations and sea-launched missile attacks on targets across Iran, along with several special operations around the globe — the Iranian response, including counter-attacks.... Russia and China.... you can fill in your doomsday scenario of choice]

In 1957, the then-new British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was asked what would determine the course of his government. He answered with one of the greatest truisms ever uttered by any player on any national or world stage: "Events, my good man, events !" This is a phrase of universal application, it was even applied to local events by a person commenting on a Gatemouth posting “Ancient Order of Blarney Edition” on “Room Eight” back when former Congressman Weiner was recent “Old News”, after having been “exposed” Emailing and Tweeting self-portraits.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The consensus view of the chattering class is that President Barack Obama narrowly won last night’s debate — if that is true, it’s only because the moderator, a long-time member of that chattering class, Candy Crowley, jumped into the debate at a key moment and ratified a false statement about Benghazi made by the President of the United States, then she ratified the point being made by Mitt Romney and lastly she changed the topic after having turned the segment into a complete mess.

Last night the Huffington Post couldn’t wait to get out the word that, “Tonight, Obama won clear points on a range of issues, from pay equity and contraception access, to immigration and China policy. Despite a disadvantage on Libya going into the debate, one of Obama's most decisive knockdowns came when Romney thought he had the president cornered on the issue. After spending weeks hammering the Obama administration for mishandling the crisis that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, Romney once again fumbled the facts.”

Not so. It was Barack Obama and Candy Crowley who fumbled the facts about Benghazi — thinking that it helped Obama.

In reality the actual words used by Barack Obama last night were just the latest installment of the Benghazi cover-up. Romney saw Obama way off-base and leaning in the wrong direction and was about to pick him off when Crowley jumped into the play and kept that from happening. Here’s exactly what the transcript says:

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...
ROMNEY: Yes, I - I...
CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.
ROMNEY: I - I think interesting the president just said
something which - which is that on the day after the attack he went
into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it
was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're
saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because
it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi
an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It - it - it - he did in fact, sir.
So let me - let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well
take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there
being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct
about that.
ROMNEY: This - the administration - the administration
indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous
reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act
by a terrorist group. And to suggest - am I incorrect in that
regard, on Sunday, the - your secretary –
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on
the Sunday television shows and spoke about how –
OBAMA: Candy, I'm –
ROMNEY: - this was a spontaneous –
CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me –
OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation –
CROWLEY: I know you –
OBAMA: - about foreign policy.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to - I want to move you on and
also –
OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too.
CROWLEY: - the transcripts and –
OBAMA: I just want to make sure that –
CROWLEY: - figure out what we –
OBAMA: - all of these wonderful folks are going to have a
chance to get some of their questions answered.

For those interested, this is exactly what the President said in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012 with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side (look and see if Barack Obama said the Benghazi attack was an act of terror): “As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” (That’s the only mention of “ ‘act’ of terror” in the Rose Garden speech and it isn’t specifically addressed to the events in Benghazi.)

It seems that Russell Gallo fell for the same “ Tabloid ‘Science’ ” that caught the likes of the following shows or publications: Climate Depot; FOX & Friends; Watts Up With That?; as well as these related networks and/or outlets: Fox Nation; Gateway Pundit; National Review Online and Powerline....

[Cue the Twilight Zone Theme]
Rod Serling (mid-close-up in grainy B&W, in a narrow lapel suit with a narrow tie, smoking a cigarette, looking straight into the camera ) Case in point: Russell Gallo, a twenty-first century conservative-style Republican at the back end of Brooklyn, who’s trying to score a few easy anti-environmental points with some goober using warmed-over info. Mr. Gallo thinks he’s wading into the global warming debate, albeit at the shallow end with minimal information. But what Russ doesn’t get is that this isn’t just a debate with a few guys on Twitter, because the real debate about such things is just starting to heat up for him in “The Twilight Zone”....

Yesterday the South Carolina Democratic State Chairman Dick Harpootlian appeared on Megyn Kelly's show. Harpootlian questioned how anybody could be assessing blame for the Benghazi fiasco because nobody even knows what U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was doing there or why as the U.S. Ambassador, he had no adequate security. Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assumed the responsibility for any lack of security. Some very important questions need to be answered ASAP.

What is known is that Ambassador Stevens slipped into Benghazi directly from Europe aboard a ship. What has not been disclosed is what he was actually doing there nor is it known why he did not have adequate security once he arrived back “in country”.

Some have said that Dick Harpootlian's remarks show that the Obama folks are getting ready for an attempt at blaming one of the victims for what happened in Benghazi. Those observers say that by suggesting Ambassador Stevens shouldn't have gone to Benghazi without adequate security, his death could have been his own fault. Furthermore, that by even asking, “Why did he do that?” Harpootlian and others like him are implying that our murdered ambassador shouldn't have done that.

All of that is very interesting as conjecture. A more interesting and telling question is: Why more than one month after the still problematic, but probable, memorial attack on Benghazi on September 11, 2012 that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador, neither the President of the United States nor his Secretary of State are prepared to tell the people of the United States the basic details of what happened to their ambassador nor are they prepared give some credible explanation why so little credible information is available after a whole month.

We waited a couple of days to see what the buzz would be about former mayor Giuliani’s endorsement of Russell Gallo’s GOP run for the NYS Assembly from the 45th AD. Even though there hasn't been a lot of word of mouth opinion or chit-chat, it was worth the wait for some of the blog stuff.

The coverage items ranged from the terse report appearing in Colin Campbell’s “Morning Read, which because of its brevity we repeat here in all its glory: “Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsed Russ Gallo to replace Brooklyn Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz last night. ‘Right now, the State Assembly lacks the leadership and the will to do what must be done to get our state functioning properly. Russell Gallo is a born leader,’ Mr. Giuliani said in a statement. ‘Russell has the courage to stand up to the dysfunction in Albany and serve his community with the same honor and dignity he has shown throughout his entire life’.” Then there was the extremely terse, “Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsed Republican Assembly candidate Russell Gallo, who’s challenging Democratic Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz in the 45th AD.”, which appeared in the “Extras” column of “Capital Tonight”; which was conveniently placed not far from the following item, “The infamous State Fair sausage sandwich gets still more political coverage.”

Of course, there was the [self-]congratulatory “‘AMERICA’S MAYOR’ RUDY GIULIANI ENDORSES RUSSELL GALLO FOR STATE ASSEMBLY!” by Gene R. Berardelli, Esq., in Berardelli’s and Gallo’s “Brooklyn GOP Radio - Official - Show Blog” (btw, don’t they cover anything but Gallo’s race in the 45th AD anymore) and its too lengthy for a press release version that appeared on the “BNC” Brooklyn News Corp blog entitled, “Former NYC Mayor Giuliani Endorses Russell Gallo for NYS AD45” (or was that just a drive-by cut and paste reprint by BNC?). Strangely, that little feature about the Giuliani endorsement of Gallo in BNC appeared under a gaudy box link that says, “CLICK HERE TO REVIEW YOUR ARREST RECORD NOW” (funny how those things happen) ! ? ! ?.

Now, certainly our favorite of the comments on the Giuliani endorsement of Gallo is the one that appeared in Gatemouth’s Room Eight post, “OVER A DECADE LATER, RUDY DANCES ON A DEAD WOMAN'S GRAVE.” This was a virtuoso performance by the golden gated embouchure or in this case the gravely growling embrasure.

After a nice tip of the hat in this direction, or appropriate to the original Gatemouth, a nodding glissando, good old Gateman made a nifty pivot to his take on the Giuliani endorsement of Gallo “...However, to be fair, I must concede that the day’s biggest story belongs to Gallo. *** Normally, Rudy Giuliani endorsing a Republican would be snooze-worthy. *** But Steve Cymbrowitz was once a Rudy guy....” After that Gatemouth does a chapter and verse on the history of Assemblyman Cymbrowitz and Rudy Giuliani that turned into a raking enfilade of the incumbent that all lovers of Steve Cymbrowitz would much prefer to have been left untold.

Everything else aside, it’s great to see a Republican notable like Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorse a real Republican like Russ Gallo. Some people know that I’ve had a problem with Mr. G for quite a while, and it’s not likely to end soon. However, this endorsement by “America’s Mayor” is good for Gallo's campaign and good for the Brooklyn GOP going forward —

In the aftermath of the White House’ walking back the remarks of Vice President Biden about Benghazi during his debate with Paul Ryan, the only question left was whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would fall on her sword — or be helped to do so. Maybe, by taking an old play from the Janet Reno playbook --- taking some kind of verbal responsibility --- she can avoid having to do anything else

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used an out-of-the-way interview in Peru to take some kind of official responsibility for the Benghazi disaster; and in so doing, to provide some kind of political cover for her boss, President Obama. These were some of the remarks of Secretary of State Clinton:

“I take responsibility” for the security oversights that allowed the Sept. 11th attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya....”;

“What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game,” Clinton told CNN. “I know that we’re very close to an election … [and] we are at our best as Americans when we pull together....”; and

“The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals, [who are] the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

According to The New York Times, “Clinton appeared to be trying to inoculate President Obama from criticism as he prepared for Tuesday’s [campaign] debate.”

However, any such inoculation is a very unlikely outcome. Quickly, three Republican Senators, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, rejected the gambit, saying jointly: “If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team — but if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred...”

Other commentators have also noted that the Secretary of State also apparently used her interview to shift some of the blame onto lower-ranking State Department officials who were implementing the administration’s policy of downgrading security in Libya. More important, none of what Hillary Clinton had to say addressed the part of the Benghazi scandal related to the weeks-long attempts by the White House and the Obama Campaign, including statements by Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and President Barack Obama, himself, to cover the whole mess up as some kind of spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video clip.

Mark Bowden, is a national correspondent for “The Atlantic” and author of the new book, “The Finish: The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden.” According to Bowden, Vice President Joe Biden opposed the president's authorization to attack Osama Bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, because if the mission failed for any reason, President Barack Obama [and Biden] would lose their chance at re-election.

According to Mark Bowden, Vice President Joseph Biden was the very last hold-out in opposition to the mission to get Osama Bin Laden. In an article that appeared in “The Guardian” on 10-12-12 Mark Bowden wrote that, in the end, “The only major dissenters were Joe Biden and defense secretary Robert Gates, and, by the next morning, Gates had changed his mind. Everyone else favored sending in the Seals.” His book actually goes a little further and states that Vice President Biden’s reason for opposing the raid was political. Last night, when Greta Van Suteren read that portion from his book, Bowden acknowledged that Vice President Biden’s reason for being the last member of the inner circle to oppose the raid was almost entirely based upon his fear of the political repercussions of a failed operation, and he advised the President to wait until there was better intelligence about the target.

During the debate last week between Vice President Joseph Biden and the GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan, Vice President Biden’s description of his presence at the time it had been decide to go after OBL certainly made it seem like Biden was an unequivocal and absolute supporter of the decision to launch the raid. After author Mark Bowden’s appearance on the Fox News program “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren, that part of the Vice Preisdent’s “performance” during the debate now looks like it was a moment of personal hypocrisy. [...://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/author-mark-bowden-on-the-record/...].

After mentioning Mark Bowden’s new book, Greta Van Susteren went into the Bowden segment by showing a video clip from the Vice Presidential debate where Joe Biden talked about the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Then Van Susteren said, “...Vice President Joe Biden became the biggest cheerleader of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, but here’s something you didn’t know. The Vice President actually opposed the mission. In fact, he was the only advisor who told President Obama not to go ahead with the plan. So why did he tell the President not to do it? ....” The rest of her interview with Mark Bowden indicated that Biden’s main reason was the fear of political consequences.

Greta Van Susteren read from Bowden’s book: “He [Biden] believed that if the president decided to choose either the air or the ground option, and if the effort failed in any of the many ways it could, Obama would lose his chance for a second term.”

Bowden added this in response to Ms. Van Susteren's reading: “...In a way, Biden of all the people in the room would be the one to speak to the political consequences of the raid going wrong.... he weighed in for more caution. He said, ‘I think we should have more information that Osama Bin Laden is there.’ His advice was not heeded ....”

Monday, October 15, 2012

In the Storobin-Felder race for the New York State Senate in the 17th SD — Did Simcha exhibit a “No Simcha” symptom by saying in a largely Yiddish holiday mailer that Storobin isn’t Jewish — or at least implying that he isn’t Jewish enough?

Citing a report in the Jewish Voice, the 10/10/12 Gestetner Updates says that a “FIRESTORM...” has erupted over a 15-page mailer from the Felder Campaign that was aimed at the Boro Park frum community. In that mailer, which was in Yiddish, Felder referred to David Storobin as a “son without a name” (translation) explaining that he is “not even to be considered as a candidate for our community” (translation). But so far, the only "FIRESTORM" seems to be flickering candles in the wind on a couple of blogs.

Days before the Gestetner report, Jacob Kronbluh, who was quoted in the Gestetner post, had posted his own piece, “Shocker: Simcha Felder Claims Storobin is Not A Jewish Candidate” in his own blog, “Let’s Talk Dogri (straightforward)!!!” Jacob Kornbluh has a close association to the Brooklyn GOP and is a strong supporter of State Senator David Storobin. It is not surprising, therefore, that he would be passionate in his defense of the State Senator when he sees an unfair attack by Storobin’s opponent, Simcha Felder. According to Mr. K (a/k/a “the Jacob Kornbluh”), Simcha Felder made the claim that Storobin is not a Jewish candidate on page four of Felder newspaper that had been written in Yiddish. According to Kornbluh, who is fluent in Yiddish, the Felder piece said, "We have no alternative: Simcha is the ONLY actual candidate from a Jewish standpoint. The other side (Storobin) is a son without a name. And its understandable that he is not even to be considered as a candidate for our community."

The second part of Kornbluh’s “...Dogri...” was equally telling. Jacob Kornbluh took note that, not only has Storobin’s Jewishness been well established, along with his family history in Russia, Simcha Felder’s own prior history of minimizing the depth and significance of his Jewish background is also well documented.

An account similar to the one that appeared in Yossi Gestetner’s blog was contained in a 10/5/12 post by Azi Paybarah, “Simcha Felder’s Holiday Newspaper” in ‘This Is How New York Works – Capital”. According to Azi Paybarah’s report, “a supporter” of Simcha Felder, who saw the Kornbluh translation of the Felder Campaign material, admitted that the overall message in the offensive passage was accurately translated by Jacob Kornbluh. However, in an update to the Paybarah report, “...Capital” quoted an unidentified "spokesman" for Felder, who maintained the initial translation by Kornbluh was too literal, and that the phrase was comparable to saying, "He isn't known around here." in English.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

If there are no significant changes, Ben Akselrod will be the next Assemblyman from the 45th AD. The only real question that remains to be answered is whether Mr. Akselrod will be elected in 2012 or 2014.

Akselrod participated in two primary fights in 2012 -- he narrowly lost the Democratic Party primary to the incumbent Democrat Assemblyman from the 45th AD, Steven Cymbrowitz -- and he was successful in an Independence Party write-in primary against both Cymbrowitz and the Republican-Conservative candidate Russell Gallo. As a result, the November 2012 election will have all three of candidates on the ballot for the position of Member of the Assembly from the 45th Assembly District.

All three present themselves as community-oriented, family values, social conservatives --- both Cymbrowitz and Akselrod are enrolled Democrats and Gallo is an enrolled Republican. Most observers say that Cymbrowitz is only as "conservative" as he needs to be, while both Akselrod and Gallo are both very comfortable with most if not all of the forms and brands of "conservative" that are popular in 2012.

For various reasons, it is my view that Cymbrowitz represents the past way of doing things in the "old 45th AD" --- Ben Akselrod represents what's happening in the "new 45th AD" --- and Russell Gallo doesn't fit in any 45th AD, new or old.

Ben Akselrod can win this election on the Independence Party line. However, if Ben Akselrod wants to win this election on that line, he needs to take almost all of what might be considered Gallo's votes on the Republican and Conservative Party lines. Given the ethnic makeup of the new 45th AD, this is difficult but not impossible. What Mr. Akselrod needs to do is completely marginalize the nominal candidate of the Republican and Conservative parties by an open and direct appeal to Republican and Conservative voters.

As has often been said through the early going of the 2012 election cycle, for various reasons Gallo is not the right fit for many of the 45th AD's Republicans. Some of those Republicans would be willing to form the cadre of a "Republicans for Akselrod" operation. A smaller group of Conservative Party enrollees would also seem to be doable.

Using tactics like the above, if Ben Akselrod continues to work as hard in the general election as he did in his two primaries, Ben Akselrod might well be sworn in as the Assemblyman from the 45th AD at the New Year of 2013.

About Me

I formerly have commented on various political blogs concerning Republican politics. Although the focus of my political commentary has been on the Brooklyn GOP and other aspects of politics in Brooklyn, I have also posted commentary about national matters.
If you wish to contact Galewyn Massey directly, please, Email to galewynmasban@gmail.com